Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheOleRazzleDazzle/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets
I initially filed this on Commons (see Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/TheOleRazzleDazzle), but indicates that it may well be worthwhile to open another case here because there are several other accounts here and the sock is technically indistinguishable from the master.

At minimum, this appears to be clear-cut block evasion if the two are connected, as the Commons CU-confirmed sockpuppet made edits after the master was indefinitely blocked for cause by, editing about the same exact entity as the master had. I don't have any information about the other accounts that are technically related, though I imagine the CUs can communicate amongst themselves about that in light of the aforementioned response on Commons. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 02:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


 * My apologies, @Bbb23. The correct link is Commons:Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/TheOleRazzleDazzle (classic relative link mistake!). The quote is from that RFCU. —  Red-tailed sock (Red-tailed hawk's nest) 13:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
, I'm lost. Centralcoe has not been blocked on Commons. The link to your request for a CU doesn't work. Nor do I see the comment by Elcobbola that you quote (but provide no link to).--Bbb23 (talk) 12:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * - Based on Elcobbola's finding of technically indistinguishable and their comment about the accounts/users editing from an institution, I'm requesting a CU here as Elcobbola suggested. Bbb23 (talk) 13:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's very that these two are operated by the same individual. Based on the enwiki data, I don't see strong evidence to suggest that the other accounts on the network are directly related, and there are only a handful of relatively small edits from those accounts – this isn't some sort of large scale COI effort. Having looked through the history and read TheOleRazzleDazzle's UTRS appeal, I must say that I'm somewhat hesitant to impose additional sanctions; yes, it's evasion, but I don't get the impression that they are trying to be malicious. I also think the no-warning block of the master might have been a bit quick, and the account seems to have made a good-faith effort to follow our rules (cf. the disclosure). --Blablubbs (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * - Following up on User talk:TheOleRazzleDazzle. MarioGom (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Given the good faith approach by the user (disclosure, appeal with the first account), I'm, without prejudice of any admin imposing a sanctions for block evasion if they think it's necessary. MarioGom (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)